Philosophy log 8-20-07
what do you mean by spiritual experience? like odin, seth, etc. I suppose I mean an experience I associate with something beyond ordinary experience. oh, like drugs? yes, although I find they aren't necessary. More like Carl Jung talking about a connection to the extramundane. I haven't tried Carl Jung. he's tasty, I think. but does he throw a colour show, I wonder, like taking drugs will make your see colours. No. I'm talking about experiences that have more lasting transformative meaning which I found that drugs on the whole did not. what is Carl Jung's 'connection to the extramundane'? I haven't read about that. It's in his book, "Undiscovered Self". A thin little book about protection from mass mind. is that last part your evalution of it, or his intention with it? his intention with it, I believe. It's actually quite clear, if a little dense but the point is, that not everybody's spiritual experience has to agree. and here is a situation where the Law fails. Logic becomes a way of being "right" in the world. I love that and I wonder about other situations in which the Law has to be thrown out the window. Mostly experiential, I should think. ah well. not everybody's *experience* has to agree. absolutely! so you can't say, this one's wrong or right. sure you can :) haha!!! experiences are imperfect you can be full of it, too. how can you say that? and what would that mean? well I'm talking about spiritual experiences, btw. not hallucinations and such naturally experiences are just experiences. trying to stuff them into an intersubjective, collective world perception might prove hurdly. maybe I wasn't clear. I'm talking about plain experiences, such as your idea of how many forks are in your drawer. what does hurdly mean? problematic no. those are simple things. There's nothing to talk about. I'm talking about experiences that cannot be "proven" or "verified". That's where the meat of it is. the artist's process is certainly mystical in some way, non-mundane. or extra-mundane. or connected thereto. einstein: creativity is hiding your sources. it is only mystical because we like it that way. authenticity: making your sources plain. It is not the experience that is imperfect, it is so because the senses and our brain fool us it means the moment we start explaining art, we ruin it. not that art can't be explained. unless you explain it in an artful way DGNarrator, and thus create new art, point taken. :) no. It's okay to explain art as long as we don't claim to have the be-all-end-all explanation. it's a trick :) and "explain" is questionable too. MathPoet, it is okay to explain natural phenomena using science as long as we don't claim to have the be-all-end-all explanation. :) I could write a poem about a painting and that would be a kind of explanation. and i would be inspired to write a song to illustrate your poem I'm talking about artistic experience which involves a connection between the inner person and the outer world. that goes through the senses and the mind The inner experience is unverifiable and so undeniable. atheists who cling to one explanation of our physical world may be deceiving themselves, but religious people are just wishful thinkers and bad statisticians. :) may i make a point here? how can you verifiably say so? yes there is the question of matter and subjective awareness materialistic views deny the objectivity of the individual self but the material world is only a subjective impression MathPoet, because our current scientifical view of the world was derived very recently and is still somewhat imperfect, whereas most religious world views are just very unlikely. that's my impression, anyway. and science is the product of subjective minds spiritual people are so because they have experienced something. this is different from RELIGIOUS people. not all religious works are unlikely DGNarrator, which ones aren't? you cannot deny a person's spiritual experience any more than they can prove it. MathPoet, of course not. much like you can't deny a person on drugs their experience. :) old hinduistic science is now called religion, while it is a well-wrought philosophy and I would think you would go more by experience that vague "impressions" no, simon. you can't. But I say that having experienced spirituality both on and off drugs, there is a difference and it is real. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about spirituality simon, we are drugged by everything in life. food, drink, the aire that we breathe, the people lust, hate, religion seems to be yet another logic. the question remains, what can we share with the people taking the same drugs as ourselves? love, ideas, dogma's, theyre all drugs religion is a way to be right. we can only share such things as best we can. MathPoet, sometimes religion isn't illogical. in my roleplaying groups, our fantasy universes, often the metaphysics are well-founded, yet completely imaginary. yes, lets please separate organised religion from spritual experience. they are contradictory I didn't claim religion is illogical, in fact, it can often be quite logical and still allow others to do violence to another's soul. in fact, it often is and does. MathPoet, you said it wasn't, and I agree with you. most often, it is my impression, religious belief suspends logic. :) simon the difference is between believing and knowing DGNarrator, knowing is much like believing with a fixed threshold of certainty. religion asks us to believe no. I said spirituality had little to do with logic. At least I thought I said that. no, knowing is experiencing the (a) truth spirituality and religion tend to be very different things. DGNarrator, oh :) how do you know you experience the truth? See, if you say "truth" you're just replaceing God with something else. There is no valid argument. simon, how do you know what you know? i mean, how do you know something is true? DGNarrator, I don't? "I know it because I feel it." (Anthony Piccione) yes of course you do but why? DGNarrator, without venturing into complete sollipsism, what I know is what I assume with an overwhelming certainty is correct. something inside you knows something is true I have to go. Friend in the hospital. Sorry. more later, if I can? Hey guys. I see you have a good discussion going :) DGNarrator, yeah, for example my brain going "ow, that hurts." :) * MathPoet sets mode -e MathPoet * You are now known as MathPoetAway * services. sets mode -6 MathPoetAway -NickServ- This nickname is owned by someone else -NickServ- If this is your nickname, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY well, you experience pain the brain comes after first pain, then the brain :) the act of knowing requires me to experience the pain consciously first, regardless of what my nerve system does automatically. but: what is it that experiences the pain? my mind? not really. the mind analyses the nerve pulses and says: PAIN!!! there is something that experiences the mind too your thoughts and feelings are experienced by some... thing (?) by you, whatever that is you are aware of your pain there is nothing without some... thing (?) experiencing it without awareness there is nothing you could call it solipsistic, but its not because, if there is nothing outside of awareness, then the whole universe in nothing but awareness *is so every fragmment of the universe is aware, or else it wouldnt exist that is my point but we are fooled by our senses and our dreams, which we call reality and our logic and imagination and we try to get to grips by what we experience every day *with but to conclude this line of thought: The eastern old philosophy says there is only one reality, that is the self, which (who (?) is god, and god is all and western science says there is only matter/energy, and the self/mind is a product of it the two are irreconcilable (is that a good word? I'm dutch, you know) and they can't be resolved because they both are unprovable because the self is not an object and objects are not the self the self does not exist in terms of material thought, and the "material" world is not real in terms of the self it is a dream and the perceiver of the dream the field and the seer of the field this is the world according to experience and what else have we got? it is the stance we have taken in the scheme of things and it is a battle to the end and the battle is what creates the world the clash of opposites unreconcilable opposites it is a tragedy and a comedy ok. Enough. thanks for reading. * kristallpirat (n=kristall@91.65.243.3) has left ##philosophy ("und weg") well, at least you've got something on the /lastlog page :P * skor (n=skor@unaffiliated/skor) has joined ##philosophy hello skor morning there was a discussion but i silenced them all they're still thinking about it :P that good huh ? hm.. wouldn't know * DGNeree waits for the dam to break hm... it's holding :) at least i think it was coherent thinking mmm, time to grab coffee then. So what was the topic DGNeree ? there's not much talk on this channel mostly please don't let me start again :( haha ok then thanks. it was about the subjective/objective schism i'm sure i'll get back to it later category:Discussions